Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

Conscious control of your thoughts is a necessary reality in order to arrive at consciously verified conclusions - why do you deny this fact?
If it was a logical impossibility, you would never be able to conclude that it is a logical impossibility, because you would have no means to reach this conscious conclusion.

Why are you just mindlessly repeating the same stupid mistakes that have already been addressed? You keep claiming that you're not afraid but then why do you refuse to address the counterarguments?

You seem to be terrified of even thinking about it. If you're not, then stop the mindless repetition and address the answers you've been given.

[Alan Burns]

No-one can “consciously control of their thoughts” for reasons that should be obvious to you by now.

Reasons are formulated in your conscious awareness. 
Any obvious conclusion is arrived at in your conscious awareness after consciously following the reasoning.

[Stranger]

But I still can't fathom out how logical deductions can be made without any conscious control of your thoughts.

Then stop running away and address the arguments already given.

Is it blind guessing to come to the realisation that your conscious control is the reality which enables you to make logical deductions?

No, it's worse than blind guessing. It is ignoring the inherent impossibility of conscious control of our own thoughts, which is every bit as stupid as asserting 1 = 2.

[Alan Burns]

Why are you just mindlessly repeating the same stupid mistakes that have already been addressed? You keep claiming that you're not afraid but then why do you refuse to address the counterarguments?

You seem to be terrified of even thinking about it. If you're not, then stop the mindless repetition and address the answers you've been given.

How can I be terrified of accepting the simple truth that we can consciously control our own thoughts?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But I still can't fathom out how logical deductions can be made without any conscious control of your thoughts.

Given the countless times it's been explained to you, why can't you figure that out?

Is you problem with reading or with comprehension?

Is it blind guessing to come to the realisation that your conscious control is the reality which enables you to make logical deductions?

Yes, for the reasons that have been explained to you countless times (ie, that can't be "the" reality at all) and that you seem unable to process.

By the way (again), when I take the time to correct the various mistakes you make why are you so discourteous as to ignore almost all of it?

[Stranger]

How can I be terrified of accepting the simple truth that we can consciously control our own thoughts?

You seem to be terrified of thinking about the reasons you have been given as to why this is not a "simple truth" but a logical impossibility. Prove me wrong, and dare to address them. Waiting....

[Alan Burns]

It is ignoring the inherent impossibility of conscious control of our own thoughts, which is every bit as stupid as asserting 1 = 2.

I cannot ignore what is an undeniable truth.
My ability to consciously make this statement is a vindication that I have employed my own conscious control of my thoughts to compose it and write it.

[Alan Burns]

You seem to be terrified of thinking about the reasons you have been given as to why this is not a "simple truth" but a logical impossibility. Prove me wrong, and dare to address them. Waiting....

You prove yourself wrong with every consciously composed reply to my posts.

[Alan Burns]

Then stop running away and address the arguments already given.

I do not run away.
I consciously assess the arguments given and consciously compose what I deem to be a considered reply.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I cannot ignore what is an undeniable truth.

You can when it's explained to you why it's not an undeniable truth at all. It's a superficially plausible truth at best provided you don't think about it, but it's certainly deniable when you do. Or rather it would be if you weren't too scared to try.

My ability to consciously make this statement is a vindication that I have employed my own conscious control of my thoughts to compose it and write it.

Utter bullshit and dishonest bullshit at that.

Why do you think turning up on a website and spouting nothing but dishonest bullshit that, hilariously, you gussy up as "witnessing" instead will convert anyone to your blind faith beliefs? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I do not run away.

Another lie. You run away from the corrections you're given precisely to leave you room to try the same mistakes again later on.

Didn't Jesus have something to say about bearing false witness? If he were here now do you think he'd be proud of you or embarrassed by you?   

[Stranger]

I cannot ignore what is an undeniable truth.

Assertion fallacy.

My ability to consciously make this statement is a vindication that I have employed my own conscious control of my thoughts to compose it and write it.

Assertion fallacy.

You prove yourself wrong with every consciously composed reply to my posts.

Assertion fallacy.

I do not run away.

Apparently nothing but a barefaced lie. It has been explained to you why conscious control or our own thought processes results in an impossible infinite regres and you have never once addressed that explanation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

Apparently nothing but a barefaced lie. It has been explained to you why conscious control or our own thought processes results in an impossible infinite regres and you have never once addressed that explanation.

While this is of course true, AB would I think claim to have addressed it with his "it's magic innit" response where, apparently arbitrarily, he decides which rules of logic do and do not apply in magic land so as best to suit his faith claims.

This mistake has been explained to him many times without reply, and it's yet another example of an argument he claims he doesn't run away from but always does.   

[Sebastian Toe]

Conscious control of your thoughts is a necessary reality in order to arrive at consciously verified conclusions - why do you deny this fact?
If it was a logical impossibility, you would never be able to conclude that it is a logical impossibility, because you would have no means to reach this conscious conclusion.

Control of your thoughts via your subconscious and using deterministic processes is a necessary reality in order to arrive at verified conclusions - why do you deny this fact?

If that was a logical impossibility, you would never be able to conclude that it is a logical impossibility, because you would have no means to reach this conclusion.

No magic required.

[Alan Burns]

Control of your thoughts via your subconscious and using deterministic processes is a necessary reality in order to arrive at verified conclusions - why do you deny this fact?

I can honestly deny this hypothesis because it denies me the consciously driven control I am currently using to compose this reply to your post.
By definition, I have no conscious control of my subconscious, so you are wrong to claim it can determine all my consciously driven thoughts.

And I repeat the simple truth that a consciously verified deduction that "conscious control is a logical impossibility" could never be achieved if this deduction was correct.

[torridon]

I can honestly deny this hypothesis because it denies me the consciously driven control I am currently using to compose this reply to your post.

All you are describing is an experience, an experience of conscious control.  It might be our common intuition, but there is no way for you to prove this model of mind is correct.  The reality is more complex and nuanced.  Just as I feel as if I am touching the keys on my keyboard now, that being of course our common phenomenological experience of typing; however, in reality this is impossible, but rather our minds create the sensory illusion of touch.  This is a fabrication of mind

[Alan Burns]

All you are describing is an experience, an experience of conscious control.  It might be our common intuition, but there is no way for you to prove this model of mind is correct.  The reality is more complex and nuanced.  Just as I feel as if I am touching the keys on my keyboard now, that being of course our common phenomenological experience of typing; however, in reality this is impossible, but rather our minds create the sensory illusion of touch.  This is a fabrication of mind

But it is not just an experience.
It is a verifiable truth.
Verified by this consciously composed reply to your post.
The meaning  of your post enters my conscious awareness, from where I consciously contemplate composing a meaningful reply.
And the action of my fingers on the keyboard causes these letters to appear on the screen.  Just as the conscious manipulation of my thoughts causes the content of this post. 

[Sebastian Toe]

I can honestly deny this hypothesis because it denies me the consciously driven control I am currently using to compose this reply to your post.
By definition, I have no conscious control of my subconscious, so you are wrong to claim it can determine all my consciously driven thoughts.

And I repeat the simple truth that a consciously verified deduction that "conscious control is a logical impossibility" could never be achieved if this deduction was correct.

I can honestly deny your version of conscious control because it is logic defying and requires copious amounts of magic to work.
I repeat the simple truth that deterministic principles alongside a multi feedback unfathomably complex set of neurons provide all of the thinking power required inorder to dediuce that the evidence led version of reality is much more likely than your non evidenced magic-based one .

[torridon]

But it is not just an experience.
It is a verifiable truth.
Verified by this consciously composed reply to your post.
The meaning  of your post enters my conscious awareness, from where I consciously contemplate composing a meaningful reply.
And the action of my fingers on the keyboard causes these letters to appear on the screen.  Just as the conscious manipulation of my thoughts causes the content of this post.

That's not correct Alan.  You cannot verify that your conscious awareness is the causal factor in producing the output, rather than this being a feeling or a narrative memory of the way that events unfolded.  If you think your account is correct, then explain how you could verify it ?

[Alan Burns]

That's not correct Alan.  You cannot verify that your conscious awareness is the causal factor in producing the output, rather than this being a feeling or a narrative memory of the way that events unfolded.  If you think your account is correct, then explain how you could verify it ?

It is verified by my conscious ability to check that the results of my thought processes make sense within my conscious awareness. 

[Alan Burns]

I can honestly deny your version of conscious control because it is logic defying and requires copious amounts of magic to work.
I repeat the simple truth that deterministic principles alongside a multi feedback unfathomably complex set of neurons provide all of the thinking power required inorder to dediuce that the evidence led version of reality is much more likely than your non evidenced magic-based one .

Magic is an illusion.
My demonstrable ability to consciously compose this reply is no illusion - it is a miraculous gift which may well have no logical explanation but it is real.
Miracles are real.

[torridon]

It is verified by my conscious ability to check that the results of my thought processes make sense within my conscious awareness.

That's just circular, suggesting to use your conscious awareness to check your conscious awareness.  To verify your claim, you need some objective method, not one that is merely self-referential.  Try again.

[Alan Burns]

That's just circular, suggesting to use your conscious awareness to check your conscious awareness.  To verify your claim, you need some objective method, not one that is merely self-referential.  Try again.

How else can you verify anything?
Everything exists in your conscious awareness, including your thoughts and any concept of logic.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I can honestly deny this hypothesis because it denies me the consciously driven control I am currently using to compose this reply to your post.

I could explain to you why that’s an argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy (again) but as you’d just ignore the explanation (again) would there be any point?

By definition, I have no conscious control of my subconscious, so you are wrong to claim it can determine all my consciously driven thoughts.

Your conscious awareness becomes aware of things but it’s logically impossible for it to “control your thoughts” for the reasons that keep being explained to you and that you keep running away from.

And I repeat the simple truth that a consciously verified deduction that "conscious control is a logical impossibility" could never be achieved if this deduction was correct.

Yes it could, and is. Whatever the mechanism for that may me one thing’s clear: it cannot be something that’s logical impossible, which is where you always run out of road.

Magic is an illusion.

Quite, but “it’s magic innit” is the only refuge you have from the logically impossibility of your magic man “outside time and space” notion.

Magical thinking is all you have, but you also tell us that it's illusory. Which horse are you backing here? 

My demonstrable ability to consciously compose this reply is no illusion –

But the notion that there’s a logically impossible homunculus “you” at the helm is.

it is a miraculous gift which may well have no logical explanation but it is real.
Miracles are real.

And the blind faith claims to finish. Why do you think blind faith claims would be persuasive to anyone possessed of a functioning intellect? 

[Alan Burns]

And the blind faith claims to finish. Why do you think blind faith claims would be persuasive to anyone possessed of a functioning intellect?

Why do you keep consciously choosing to accuse me of blind faith?
How can you possibly come to the conclusion that my faith is blind without any conscious control of your own thoughts?
You consciously choose to dismiss, ridicule or find reasons to refute any evidence or reasons I put forward to justify my faith.
Can you not see that in all this you are employing your own ability to consciously control the thought processes involved in order to try to justify your own (mistaken) belief that we have no conscious control of our thoughts?